Done in by Greed

The following game was a tense, balanced affair, travelling through known territory for a dozen moves and on into a balanced middle game. When I went pawn-grabbing with my Queen, however, my opponent struck back hard, eventually checkmating me.

Lesson?

perrypawnpusher - ZhekaR
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6

7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 Nf6

The Database shows that mrjoker has a win, a loss, and a draw against 8...Qe7.

9.Nc3

Or 9.d3, which can traspose to the game.

9...Qe7 10.Qe3 d6

11.0-0 Be6

Black has many alternatives, including: 11...b6 as in perrypawnpusher - Navarrra, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 24) [Hmmm, I don't think that I have posted this game yet - RK]; 11...Rf8 as in mrjoker - rex3, CC, 2009 (1-0, 50), perrypawnpusher - MRBarupal, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 31), perrypawnpusher - parlance, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 20) and perrypawnpusher - chingching, blitz, FICS, 2011 (½-½, 36); 11...Ne5 as in perrypawnpusher - mikelars, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 50); and 11...Kd7 as in perrypawnpusher - parlance, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 22).

12.f4 Bc4

Earlier this year I faced 12...Kd7 in perrypawnpusher - Solaar, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 33).

13.d3 Ba6

14.Bd2 b6 15.Rae1 Kd7 16.Qh3+ Kd8 17.Nd5

Planning to use the opened e-file for my Rook, but 17.e5 was probably a better idea.

17...Nxd5 18.exd5 Qd7 19.Qg3 Qf5

The game is about even, as White has two pawns, better development, and a safer King as compensation for his sacrificed piece.

20.c4 Re8 21.Rxe8+ Kxe8 22.Re1+ Kd7 23.Qe3 Rf8 24.g3 c5 25.dxc6+

After the game Rybka 3 suggested instead 25.b4 cxb4 26.Bxb4.

25...Kxc6 26.Bc3 Rf7 27.Qe8+ Qd7 28.Qe4+ Kc7 29.Qa8

A fool's errand. That pawn on a7 will turn out to be very, very expensive.

29...Bb7

This is good enough for advantage, but 29...Nxf4 was already crushing (i.e. 30.gxf4 Qg4+, etc.).

30.Qxa7

The only chance to keep on playing lay with 30.Qe8.

30...Qc6

Again, good; but, again 30...Nxf4 was much stronger.

31.Re4 Re7 32.Bd4 Rxe4 33.dxe4 Ne7 34.b4 Nc8 35.Qa3 Qxe4 36.Qb2 Qe1 checkmated

Wow. Nice work by ZhekaR to punish my pawn-grabbing!

Gloom and Doom

Although I have occasionally been accused of having the demeanor of Mr. Rogers on muscle relaxants, I do have times when I am serious, or even downright gloomy – take the "Update: 8...Qf6" post, for example.

Here is another cautionary tale.

Teterow - geneve
lightning, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4

This move, rather than 6.Qh5+, was originally Alonzo Wheeler Jerome's preference.

6...Bb4+

This is an odd move, but it reflects an inconvenient fact, that Black has many ways of dealing with the Jerome Gambit, including choosing which piece(s) he wants to return – and in what way.

The move deserves a look, if only because it has been played by dismissive humans ("sure, why not?") and calculating computers.

7.c3 Qh4

How's that for a kick in the head? Just when you were saying to yourself, "Well, at least he didn't play 6...Qh4!?"

By the way, as long as I am mentioning 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf6+ Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.d4 Qh4, it is necessary to correct and update some of what I wrote in "A Pie-in-the-Face Variation" about a year and a half ago.

Today The Database contains 167 games with the 6.d4 Qh4 line. That's 26 games less than I thought that I had in November 2009, but perhaps that is a result of subsequently cleaning up my databases.

Also, 50 of the current games – about 30% of the 6.d4 Qh4 line – are now human-vs-human encounters, as opposed to only 8 (4%) in the original post. White's scoring has dropped from 50% to 29% amongst humans, which is in the right direction, but it is the ridiculously high 74% for all of the games in The Database. (Again, that is the impact of computer-vs-computer games largely selected by the source for White wins.)

8.cxb4

The dynamics of the current position are very similar to that of the position without 6...Bb4+ 7.c3. What that means is that White's best move here after 7...Qh4 has to be 8.0-0. Rybka 3, given 5 minutes per move in "blunder check" mode, further suggested 8...Nc6 9.cxb4 Qxe4 10.b5 Nce7 11.Re1 Qf5 12.Re3 Qxb5 13.Nc3 Qb6 14.Qh5+ Qg6 15.Qc5 b6 16.Qxc7 Qc6 17.Qe5 d6 18.Qg5 h6 when Black has an edge (about 3/4 of a pawn).

analysis diagram







I am not convinced that this is the best path for Black to take, however.

If I were playing the defense, after 6...Bb4+ 7.c3 Qh4 8.0-0. I would prefer the as-yet-unplayed 8...Ng4, answering 9.h3 with 9...Be7. Perhaps Rybka downgrades this line a bit because White can exchange Queens with 10.Qxg4.

Anyhow, the text move is very dangerous and Black takes charge.

8...Qxe4+ 9.Qe2

A bit better is 9.Kf1, covering the g2 pawn, but after 9...Qd3+ 10.Qe2 Qxe2+ 11.Kxe2 Nc6 Black is clearly better in an uncomplicated game. As it it, the game transposes into this line.

9...Qxe2+ 10.Kxe2 Nc6

11.Rd1 Nxb4 12.Na3 Nf6 13.Re1 Re8+ 14.Kf1 Rxe1+ 15.Kxe1 d5

16.Be3 Bf5 17.Nb5 c6 18.Nc3

A final slip. 

18...Nc2+ 19.Ke2 Nxa1 Black resigned

Looks like there is more work to be done on the 6...Bb4+ variation. With wins in The Database by Jerome Gambit Gemeinde members Darrenshome, HauntedKnight, jfhumphrey, stretto, Teterow, yorgos and, of course, Bill Wall – there is plenty of hope.

Upon Reflection

Every once-in-a-while I get the sense that I am learning from my mistakes and using in later games what I learned from earlier games. Upon reflection, this gives me a small sense of accomplishment.

perrypawnpusher - smarlny
blitz, FICS, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+

4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Kf8

Black is content with the material advantage that he has, and backs his King away from danger. Let White do what he will!

I am always tempted now to play 6.Qh5, the Banks Variation (after Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Pete Banks) but I am still uncertain how to best meet 6...Qe7.

6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.0-0 Ne7

The alternative, 7...Nf6, is as old as Jerome,A - Brownson,O, Iowa, 1875 (½-½, 29).

7...Bd6 was seen in perrypawnpusher - Lark, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 18) and 7...Be6 in perrypawnpusher - CorH, blitz, FICS, 2009 (0-1, 74).

8.d3

After the game Rybka 3 pointed out that here White can already "punish" his opponent for his inaccurate 7th move by playing for a draw with 8.Qf3+ Kg8 9.Qb3+ Kf8 10.Qf3+ Kg8 11.Qb3+, etc.

As if.

8...Ng6 9.Be3 Bd6

Not wanting to open the f-file for White's Rook with 9...Bxe3, Black positions the Bishop on the attacking diagonal b8-h7.

The piece continues to shuffle from square to square, however, and I wonder if, upon reflection, my opponent would have preferred to simply have exchanged it.

10.f4 Qh4 11.Nd2 Kf7

To castle-by-hand, but, somehow, this never happens.

12.Nf3 Qe7 13.e5 Bc5 14.d4 Bb6

15.Qd3

Preparing f4-f5, but the move was playable immediately, thanks to a tactical trick that would not have been too hard to find, if I had looked for it: 15.f5 Bxf5 16.Ng5+ followed by 17.Rxf5.

15...h6

Obviously my opponent saw the Knight check from g5. This gives the "Jerome pawns" time to rumble, however.

16.f5 Nf8

This game was beginning to feel like my game against irak: comparing White's Rooks (linked) and Black's Rooks (on their home squares, two pieces between them), there has to be an attack coming.

17.f6 gxf6 18.exf6 Qe6

Taking the pawn on f6 would have been deadly, but the danger remains.

19.Rae1 Qd5 20.Ne5+ Ke8 21.c4 Qa5

White now has a number of ways to win. The flashiest would be to sacrifice two pieces with 22.f7+ Kd8 23.Bg5+ hxg5 24.Nxc6+ bxc6 25.Qe3 and mate is inescapable.

I found something simpler.

22.Bd2 Qxa2 23.Ng6+

I thought that the loss of a Rook would prompt my opponent to resign, so I looked no further, missing all of the fun that could happen after 23.f7+.

23...Kd8 24.Nxh8 Qxb2 25.Nf7+ Black resigned

The Chess Improver

I know that I have mentioned GM Nigel Davies website "The Chess Improver" at least in passing on this blog, but I wanted to specifically encourage Readers to stop by and enjoy the varied and always informative content that he has assembled. Recently video clips from the BBC program The Master Game have been posted: interesting, top-level chess with comments by the players themselves. Great stuff!

I have also enjoyed Davies' books, and this link will take you to a number of reviews.

(One last thing: "The Chess Improver" contains a link to this blog; but, of course...)

Sunday Book Review: Why You Lose at Chess, 2nd Ed.

Why You Lose at Chess 2nd Ed
Tim Harding
Dover (2001)
softcover, 130 pages
figurine algebraic notation




I suppose that you can sense a pattern in the chess books that I have mentioned lately, the last two being Surprise in Chess and Danger in Chess: How to Avoid Making Blunders.

There are a number of links to be made between these books, Why You Lose at Chess,(*) and the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) – and I suppose I should get around to reviewing the titularly more inclusive Why We Lose at Chess (emphasis mine) by Colin Crouch and the more distanced Catalog of Chess Mistakes by Andy Soltis – but the real hook for me (besides the fact that I have loved every book by Dr. Harding that I have ever read) with Why You Lose at Chess (emphasis mine), which left me laughing out loud, was Harding's main theme of the book

Before you can play well, you must stop playing badly.

Ain't it the truth??

The table of Contents promisess a killer's row of self-induced pain

Why You Lose Material
Why You Lose In The Opening
Why You Lose In The Endgame
Why You Lose In The Middle Game
Why You Lose In Good Positions
Why You Lose In Difficult Positions
Why You Lose On Time
Why You Lose At Correspondence Chess
Why You Lose To Computers

Each chapter not only has examples of chess players behaving badly, and coming to no good ends, but also contains explanations by the author about what is going on, what should be going on, and how things could be corrected.

Of special interest is the chapter "My Most Instructive Loss" where IM Harding, IM Cenek Kottnaur, IM George Botterill and IM Bob Wade all share their insights.

I found his "Acknowledgements & Bibliography" chapter interesting as well, where Harding recommends Gerald Abrahams' The Chess Mind, Kotov's Play Like A Grandmaster and Think Like A Grandmaster and Krogius' Psychology in Chess. (I touched on all of these a while back in "My Chess Psychology Book Shelf".)

Harding maintains an optimistic, at times humorous, but always encouraging outlook

Three results are possible in a game of chess – win, loss and draw. This book is intended to cut down drastically on your rate of losses, by recognising the danger signals in time, and by analysing what went wrong in the games you do lose.
To let a potential win slip into a draw is a disappointment but, for most players, it cannot compare with the blow to one's confidence that comes from losing in a serious game. The occasional loss to an acknowledged superior is no bad thing, as an insurance against overconfidence and for the lesson in technique it may give you. However, most of your losses are probably of a more painful variety.
Most of the games you play are likely to be against opponents of approximately your own standard; yo win some and you lose some, yet you always feel that you could do better. By a little extra study beforehand, and more effort while at the board, you could turn that 50 per cent success rate into 80 or 90 per cent and so raise yourself into a new class of competition...

I've read the book through once and am working on it again. After all, an 80 or 90 per cent success rate in the Jerome Gambit would be awesome!

(*- here's a relevant list of reasons attributed to Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Bill Wall)

Something had to happen

The following game from Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member Bill Wall arrived with a note: "For your database. I got lucky in the end. I just had to play aggressive, keep the threats open and something had to happen."


Wall,B - Darkmoonstone
Chess.com, 2011

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bc5 5.Bxf7+

The Italian Four Knights Jerome Gambit.

5...Kxf7 6.Qe2 d6

This is an improvement over 6...Rf8 in Wall,B - Hamilton,E, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 22) and Wall,B - NFNZ, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 15); and a bit better than 6...d5 in Wall,B - Samvazpr, Chess.com, 2010 (0-1, 25).

7.0-0 h6 8.h3 Rf8 9.d3 Nd4 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.Nb5 Bd7

White works with the tools that he has: he will get rid of the pesky Black Bishop (allowing f2-f4) and replaces it with a doubled pawn.

12.Nxd4 exd4 13.f4 Kg8 14.Qe1 Qe7 15.Qb4 Bc6

Black focuses on developing his pieces and improving his position, rather than protect the pawn at d4 with the "ugly" (but stronger) 15...c5. White accepts the gift.

16.Qxd4 Qf7 17.Bd2 Qg6 18.f5 Qe8 19.Bc3 Rf7 20.Rf3 Nd7 21.Rg3 Ne5

22.Rf1 Qe7 23.Qe3 Kh8 24.f6

Returning the pawn to develop play against Black's Queen and King. While Bishops-of-opposite-colors endgames tend to be drawish, their middlegames favor the attacking player.

24...Rxf6 25.Rxf6 Qxf6 26.d4

26...Nc4 27.d5

A tricky move that does Black in.

27...Qh4

After the exchanges 27...Nxe3 28.Bxf6 gxf6 29.dxc6 Nc4 30.cxb7 Rb8 31.Rc3 Na5 32.b4 Nxb7 33.Rxc7 White can probably hold the draw, as Black's extra Knight will not easily protect his isolated pawns.

28.Bxg7+ Kh7 29.Qd3

Black resigned.

After 29...Ne5 30.Bxe5 dxe5 31.dxc6 White would clearly be winning.

A Slice of Jerome Gambit

My thanks to Welton Vaz, Jerome Gambit Gemeinde member from Brazil, for sending the Jerome Gambit (and related) games from FICS for June, 2011.

I looked at the games a bit closer, and made some interesting discoveries.

There was a total of 109 games with the move order 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+ played at FICS in June.

White won 44 games, lost 63, and drew twice, scoring 41%, which is about what I have found when I have studied other collections of Jerome Gambit games. (The statistics tool from ChessBase indicated that the Whites had slightly underperformed, playing at about 30 rating points below their average.)

Interestingly enough, according to The Database, 2/3 of the players facing the Jerome Gambit at FICS in June had already defended against it at least one time before (low, once; high forty). The opening, it seems, is getting around, and is much less often a surprise than I would have thought.

When playing an opponent new to the Jerome Gambit (at least according to The Database) White scored 46%. That was a bit better than when playing an opponent with some experience with the Jerome, when White scored 39%.

Although some players offered "Jerome Gambit odds" to those rated less than themselves, this was not the standard in this game sample: White was the higher-rated player in only 40% of the games. More often, the Jerome Gambit was played against equals or higher-rated opponents.

Still, it must be noted that when giving "Jerome Gambit odds" White scored 55%.

Not surprisingly, in 64 of the games in the June pool, (59 %) the higher rated player won.

Or should that number have been higher? Was the Jerome Gambit introducing some chaos into the predictions? 

In any event, if Black was the higher-rated player in 60% of the games, and the higher-rated players won about 60% of their games, it should not be surprising that White won only about 40% of the games...